Papa John's Pizza's California Wage Theft Lawsuit Settled for $3.4 Million

When California workers filed suit against Papa John's International, some wondered if the case would present an opportunity to clarify joint employer responsibility guidelines. Instead, Papa John's requested that the Central District of California approve a $3.4 million settlement to resolve the case.

Papa John's Wage Theft Lawsuit Allegations:

The wage theft lawsuit included allegations that the popular pizza chain failed to pay their workers for mandatory training, which would violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, wage requirements of New York, and California labor law.

Request for Settlement Approval Leaves Important Issues Unresolved:

With the case resolved with the pending settlement, there are issues left unresolved. Should Papa John's International be held liable when franchises engage in wage violations? 8.43 million Americans worked at franchise businesses in 2019, and many were minimum wage workers who can't afford to put in unpaid hours on the job. No one questions whether or not mandatory unpaid job training is legal – it's not. The question is who is responsible, but the settlement means this case won't lead to any answers.  

Details of the Case: Avalos v. Papa John's International, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case is Sofia Avalos along with several other Papa John's employees and a proposed class of Papa John's hourly employees. According to the lawsuit, workers were required to complete mandatory online job training. Employees were required to complete the training before they clocked in for a shift or after they clocked out, so they were not paid for the mandatory training.

Who Was Responsible for the Wage Violation?

Online training modules were accessed on the corporate website, and workers allege it was a common practice to require the mandatory training be completed off the clock across various Papa John's facilities throughout the nation. Due to the way the training was tracked, Papa John's knew (or had very good reason to know) that the training modules were completed off the clock. In addition to not being paid for all their hours worked, the standard practice also resulted in undercounted total hours, inaccurate calculations of minimum wage and overtime, and inaccurate wage statements.  

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or need to file an overtime lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Coronavirus Safety Lawsuits Lobbed at Both Safeway and McDonalds

Both Safeway and McDonalds are facing Coronavirus Safety lawsuits. After a former Safeway employee contracted Covid-19 and died, the massive grocery store chain ended up facing a California wrongful death lawsuit. McDonalds is also facing a California lawsuit based on numerous alleged safety violations related to employee safety amid the Covid-19 pandemic.   

Safeway Faces California Wrongful Death Lawsuit:

Pedro Zuniga and over 50 other Safeway workers were put to work in alleged hazardous conditions at Safeway's warehouse and contracted coronavirus. The employees were not provided with personal protective equipment, and social distancing practices were not put in place to protect the workers. The company discouraged employees from calling in sick, and placed them in close quarters during their shifts. After contracting coronavirus, Zuniga died. Zuniga's widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

Details of the Case: Zuniga v. Safeway 

Zuniga and approximately 1,700 other employees worked at the Tracy, California Safeway Distribution Center. In mid-March the massive warehouse was hit hard by a Covid-19 outbreak, but workers claim the company did nothing about it. Workers claim Safeway posted a sign at the warehouse listing employee guidelines regarding coronavirus. The signage allegedly did not recommend personal protective gear for workers (such as masks or gloves), even though both federal and state authorities advised PPE in such situations. Workers were required to work even when they were ill with coronavirus. Workers who spoke out against the company's handling of the situation were threatened with disciplinary action (the loss of "points" that could lead to termination).  

Worker Safety Violations Allegedly Resulted in Death:

Zuniga tested positive for coronavirus by April 1st, 2020 and was admitted to the hospital. Less than two weeks later, he died. The Zuniga family's legal counsel accuses Safeway of prioritizing production and company profits above worker safety. The California wrongful death lawsuit argues that the grocery store hid the outbreak in their warehouse, and failed to put appropriate safeguards in place to protect employees from coronavirus dangers until after Zuniga was in the hospital critically ill with the virus. Other deaths allegedly occurred amongst the family and friends of exposed Safeway workers who brought the coronavirus home with them.

Workers Claim Coronavirus Precautions Put in Place Too Late:

Workers claim that Safeway only put safety measures in place to protect workers from coronavirus exposure after Zuniga died. At that point, Safeway decided all employees would be required to undergo a health screening including a temperature reading prior to entering the facility. Another separate lawsuit was filed against Safeway for similar allegations in Alameda County Superior Court.

McDonalds Faces Class Action Lawsuit Citing Unsafe Conditions During Covid 19 Pandemic:

McDonalds employees filed a similar class action lawsuit but aren't seeking financial compensation. Workers are accusing McDonalds of not providing appropriate (and necessary) protective equipment to protect workers from coronavirus exposure. Instead of seeking financial compensation, McDonalds workers are insisting that McDonalds provide their workers with enough hand sanitizer, gloves, and masks, as well as training to help decrease the spread of coronavirus.                                                          

If you need to talk to someone about safety in the workplace amid the Covid-19 pandemic, or if you need to file a Covid-19 workplace safety lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Aldi, Inc. California Overtime Lawsuit Ends in Settlement?

Plaintiffs in a California class action lawsuit claim that a major grocery chain violated employment law. Aldi, Inc., the grocery store chain, offers to resolve the claims through settlement.  

Plaintiffs Allege California Grocery Store Failed to Pay Overtime: 

A recent California class action alleges Aldi, Inc. failed to pay employees for all hours worked. The original Plaintiff in the case, Jeree Grant, filed the class action claiming misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide payment for all hours worked. According to Grant, Aldi employed her to work at one of their grocery stores from October 2017 to May 2018, but she did not receive payment for all the hours she worked. The California class action lawsuit listed other allegations under California labor code, including meal break violations, rest break violations, wage statement violations, etc. Aldi has a reputation for being brutally efficient amidst the competition in the California grocery store scene. They draw shoppers with low prices and a minimal $0.25 deposit for grocery cart rentals. Yet shoppers are not aware that a significant portion of the "discount" they enjoy is possible because Aldi management doesn't just keep a "tight" rein on labor costs – their grip far more than "tight." According to the lawsuit, management violates labor law to take advantage of their own workers, adding to their bottom line by taking from those who cannot afford the loss. 

Aldi Grocery Store, Defendant in California Class Action Lawsuit:  

The central claim in the Aldi class action is misclassification under California labor law. Other allegations under the California labor code regarding mandatory meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements follow from the lawsuit's central claim. While the allegations in the class action are fairly simple, the speedy resolution could indicate a more complicated story of worker abuse. Some suspect a widespread problem of systemic misclassification to treat hourly nonexempt workers as if they were managerial staff so the company can avoid paying overtime wages. 

Defendant Offers to Settle with Grocery Workers in Misclassification Case:  

Aldi, the grocery store facing the misclassification allegations, offered to settle with the class of potentially thousands of California workers. The company didn't waste time offering a $2 million settlement. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law applies to your workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ice Cream Shop’s CAFA Removal Rejected by California Federal Court

In recent news, a California district court remanded a wage and hour class action (Hayes v. Salt & Straw, LLC) back to state court after rejecting evidence and arguments supporting its removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

History of the Case: Hayes v. Salt & Straw, LLC 

The plaintiff in the case filed a workplace class action alleging nine California labor code violations and one claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit includes broad allegations. Allegedly, the defendant failed to provide employees with appropriate wages, failed to provide employees with mandatory rest breaks and meal periods, failed to keep accurate records, failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in the employees’ regular rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rate, and failed to provide employees with accurate overtime pay based on their alternative workweek schedule.

The Defendant in the Case Removed to Federal Court:

The ice cream shop listed as the defendant in the case removed to federal court under CAFA. The plaintiff sought to remand by arguing that CAFA’s $5 million threshold had not been established. The district court heard the plaintiff’s argument and agreed, remanding the case back to California state court and finding that the defendant’s estimate of the amount in controversy was based on unreasonable assumptions.

More About the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA):

Congress provides jurisdiction over class actions to federal courts when they involve at least 100 class members, there is minimal diversity, and the amount in controversy is more than $5 million. Defendants seeking to remove under CAFA must include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the designated jurisdictional threshold. When the plaintiff in the case disagrees with the amount in controversy the defendant identifies, both parties submit their argument and evidence to the court. The defendant bears the burden of proof. The removing defendant is allowed to make assumptions regarding the amount in controversy. As the court explained in this case, those assumptions must be reasonable and appropriate considering any actual evidence submitted by the other party.

Evidence Submitted by Defendant in Support of Removal to Federal Court:

The defendant in the case submitted a declaration from counsel and a declaration from a human resources manager based on a review of regularly kept payroll records, but they did not submit the actual payroll records. The plaintiff argued that the payroll records were necessary, but the court disagreed, finding that the declarations were well-supported evidence for CAFA removal purposes. The court also pointed out that the plaintiff did not submit any evidence in competition with the declarations, so there was no evidence that they were unreliable or inaccurate.

The Court’s Eventual Rejection of Defendant’s Assumptions:

The court did agree with the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s estimates were based on unreasonable assumptions for four of the claims in the suit. The court criticized the defendant’s argument for assuming a 100% violation rate for the overtime wage estimate, waiting time penalty estimate, wage statement claim estimate, and off the clock estimate.

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California employment law claim, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Impact Group Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime

In recent news, a class action overtime lawsuit was filed against Impact Group, LLC. The overtime lawsuit alleges that the company violated several California Labor Code provisions.

Impact Group Allegedly Violated Multiple California Labor Code Provisions:  

According to the recent class-action lawsuit, Impact Group LLC allegedly failed to provide workers with minimum wage, failed to provide overtime pay, and failed to provide mandatory rest periods. California labor law requires employers to provide California employees with meal and rest periods. The case (Case No. 30-2020-01141107-CU-OE-CXC) is pending in California’s Orange Superior Court.

Allegations Made Against Impact Group in Recent California Overtime Lawsuit:

In the overtime lawsuit filed against Impact Group, LLC, plaintiffs allege that Impact did not provide accurate itemized wage statements, did not properly record required meal and rest periods, did not provide mandatory meal and rest periods, did not pay overtime wages as required by law, did not pay minimum wage as required by law, did not reimburse employees for eligible required expenses, and did not pay wages when they were due. The laundry list of allegations cite violations in several applicable California Labor Code Sections, including §§201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order. Alleged violations leave the company subject to civil penalties.

What Is an Act of Unfair Competition?

The complaint also includes allegations that Impact Group, LLC engaged in acts of unfair competition. “Unfair competition” is defined as dishonest or fraudulent rivalry in trade or business. Unfair competition is a branch of intellectual property law relating to the practice of endeavoring to substitute your own goods or products in the market for those of another to deceive buyers or the public. Engaging in acts of unfair competition violates the California Unfair Competition Law under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”).

Impact Allegedly Engaged in Unfair Competition:

The lawsuit alleges that Impact Group engaged in unfair competition through the use of a company-wide policy/procedure failing to calculate and record overtime rates accurately for the plaintiff and other class members. Impact’s willful disregard of their legal obligation to accurately record overtime hours worked, and accurately calculate overtime rates for employees meant their workers did not receive full overtime pay for overtime hours.

If you need to discuss employment law violations in the workplace or overtime pay violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Disney Facing Discrimination, Harassment, and Wrongful Termination Claims

Douglas Keith Harris, a 57-year-old African American and former Disney employee, filed a California employment law lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment, and workplace retaliation based on his age, disability, race, and veteran status. The discrimination and retaliation lawsuit was filed after Harris’ 32-year career with the company was abruptly terminated. 

Former Disney Employee Files California Discrimination Lawsuit:

Harris’ lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuit is filed against Disney in Los Angeles and alleges that veteran Harris’s exemplary 32-year career suddenly ended after he was falsely accused of brandishing a firearm at work to another co-worker. Harris claims there is no evidence that he had a gun at work. 

History of Discrimination in the Workplace:

The complaint outlines an alleged history of discrimination in the workplace. According to Harris, his younger superiors regularly mocked him for his disability (being deaf in one ear) and frequently advised him to retire. Harris also claims that his superiors abused their power over him to change his schedule when he returned after a surgery – assigning him the graveyard shift. In January 2020, Harris’ discrimination and harassment complaints ended with the accusation that he brought a gun into the workplace.  

Disney’s Response to the Accusation Against Harris:

Harris claims that instead of speaking to him after the accusation was made, Disney instead contacted the police. As a result, Harris’ car and belongings were searched. The officers did not find a gun or any other weapons. Disney ignored Harris’ pleas that he did not bring a gun to work and did not have a gun, and immediately suspended him. Harris claims Disney treated him like a criminal, and he suffered extreme emotional distress. One week later, Disney fired Harris.

Allegations Include Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation:

Harris’ lawsuit alleges Disney violated California labor in several ways: discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation. Harris claims the employment law violations were based on race, veteran status, and disability.

If you need to discuss workplace discrimination or if you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Lawsuit Against LA Sparks, Ex-GM Claims Wrongful Termination

Former Los Angeles Sparks general manager, Toler, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in the California Superior Court in Los Angeles County against both the franchise itself and the former COO Christine Simmons. Proceedings for the wrongful termination case are scheduled to start August 20th, 2020. 

Former General Manager Filed Wrongful Termination Complaint:

Toler, LA Spark’s former general manager, filed the wrongful termination lawsuit in March 2020, right before the courts were shut down in response to California’s emergency declaration due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The discovery phase of the case begins in August 2020. Toler claims that LA Sparks managing partner, Eric Holoman, wrongfully terminated her in October after an ESPN report that Toler used the “N-word” in the locker room after a playoff loss.

Toler Claims Termination Stemmed from Confrontations Regarding Toxic Work Environment:

Toler claims that the media report was used as an excuse to terminate her from her position, but that she was actually fired because she persisted in confronting the toxic work environment created due to an affair between Holoman and Simmons and alleged sexual misconduct on the part of Brian Agler, the team’s former head coach.

Calling the WNBA Out for Silence on the Toler Issue Amidst Black Lives Matter Movement:

Toler’s claims pit one of the WNBA’s original executives against the franchise she ran for decades and calls the leagues handling of Agler, its commitment of equity, and its support of equality into question. Toler’s attorney questions whether the WNBA can have an honest conversation about race and equality in the WNBA without looking into the issues of the Toler wrongful termination case. Toler’s legal counsel also pointed out that it’s shocking to hear the silence from the WNBA on the Toler issue while they simultaneously make comments about Black Lives Matter and equality…he suggests they look to their own house first.

The History of the Toler Wrongful Termination Case:

According to Toler, Simmons’ presence in the organization after resigning as COO in December 2018 created difficulty for Toler to perform her duties as a general manager. After leaving the Sparks for positions as COO of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and as regent for the University of California system, supposedly continued the extra-marital affair with Holoman, Sparks managing partner, and a close friendship with Candace Parker (franchise star). Toler was left with Holoman as the cause of her difficulties on the job, as well as the only person she could turn to for help with the problem. Toler also claims that she was inhibited while attempting to construct the Sparks roster because it was made clear to her that Parker was off-limits in any trade discussions. Toler alleges gender discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, wrongful termination, non-payment of wages, and unfair business practices.

If you need to file a discrimination lawsuit or if you need to discuss other employment law violations, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.